Babylon BOMBS at box office!!!

The worst case scenario has occurred when it comes to Damien Chazelle’s $100 million epic “Babylon” which shall now be called “Bombylon.”

A $4.5 million 3-day opening is being predicted for Chazelle’s movie. If you remember, it was projected at $18 million two weeks ago, then the reviews came out. It was then tracking at around $10 million and, possibly, because of bad weather occurring all around the country, is now going to open at $4.5 million.

Then again, should we actually blame bad weather? “Avatar: The Way of Water” is tracking at a $92 million in its second week. That’s just a 40% drop from last weekend. Congrats to James Cameron. His film has legs.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92May 22, 2023 2:32 AM

Two massive flops this year (Amsterdam and now this). Margot Robbie is box office poison.

She better hope Barbie does well.

by Anonymousreply 1December 24, 2022 7:26 PM

Nobody in their right mind was going out to see a movie in the middle of some of the worst weather in a generation. I’ve seen innumerable videos of cars sliding around like billard balls. I wouldn’t go see a movie right now if my life depended on it. They should have waited a week.

by Anonymousreply 2December 24, 2022 8:16 PM

But Avatar 2 is doing extremely well. These are nationwide and world wide numbers. Its a huge flop. No way it makes enough money to break even.

by Anonymousreply 3December 24, 2022 9:37 PM

A movie like this was truly dependent on reviews and it got (mostly) eviscerated

by Anonymousreply 4December 24, 2022 9:40 PM

Well, you’re just rubbing your little clit into multiple Os, aren’t you, Babylon troll.

by Anonymousreply 5December 24, 2022 9:59 PM

Someone here has been pressed over Margot Robbie.

But BARBIE looks like another stinker.

by Anonymousreply 6December 25, 2022 1:37 AM

Three hour and eight minute movie about 1920s Hollywood with some boring, generic, and overexposed actress in the lead role.

by Anonymousreply 7December 25, 2022 1:43 AM

Another bomb for Damien Chazelle. Wow it seemed like they were really hyping the shit out of this.

by Anonymousreply 8December 25, 2022 1:46 AM

No movie should be more than 2 hours, but especially a period piece.

Unless of course they want it to bomb.

by Anonymousreply 9December 25, 2022 8:29 AM

Slag it all you want. Just recognise that its failure is going ensure dozens of other quality movies never get financing or studio distribution because of it. Quality studio movies are in their last gasp. A success for Babylon would have meant the air hose lasted a little longer. Now the main studios are going to serve up superhero shit forever.

by Anonymousreply 10December 25, 2022 8:57 AM

Gee, maybe if the studios didn’t spend $100 million on Babylon before P&A and spent $20 on 5 movies, they wouldn’t br in an artistic and financial pickle.

by Anonymousreply 11December 25, 2022 10:54 AM

Not all movies are made for mass appeal and box office bonanza, but no one should reasonably expect this type of movie to be a box office hit with modern audiences.

by Anonymousreply 12December 25, 2022 11:44 AM

Will studios stop offering her everything if Barbie bombs?

by Anonymousreply 13December 25, 2022 1:10 PM

In the age of streaming is "box office" even relevant?

by Anonymousreply 15December 25, 2022 2:42 PM

Straight whites strike again!

by Anonymousreply 16December 25, 2022 2:45 PM

Barbie will be the nail in the coffin

by Anonymousreply 17December 25, 2022 2:46 PM

All those bombs and she’s in her 30s too. Not good for an actress.

by Anonymousreply 18December 25, 2022 5:34 PM

Fuck robie. The American public doesn’t like her. She’s a boring bland beauty with no depth. Aussies need to go make their own movies in their own country. Enough of them.

by Anonymousreply 19December 25, 2022 5:37 PM

I get this movie mixed up with that other Margot Robbie bomb, Amsterdam. I guess it's the one word, location type names.

by Anonymousreply 20December 25, 2022 5:43 PM

Hollyweird’s lesson from this failure is “Shouldn’t gamble on unknown stories, we should go back to sequels and super heroes!”

by Anonymousreply 21December 25, 2022 5:56 PM

R21: There's still an interest and a demand for unknown, interesting American stories. People don't want to see some narcissistic, masturbatory snoozefest about the transition from silent films to talkies.

by Anonymousreply 22December 25, 2022 7:49 PM

Don’t worry Margot—I’ve been there, darling. They’ll still remember your name. Give me a ring if you need any comforting. I’m…shall I say, famous for my abilities at soothing a gal in distress.

by Anonymousreply 23December 25, 2022 7:56 PM

R10 you demonstrate the problem that Hollywood has today. The attitude that the audience owes something to Hollywood and not vice versa.

by Anonymousreply 24December 25, 2022 8:00 PM

Is it money laundering? What a stupid idea to spend 100m on a movie about 1920 hollywood

by Anonymousreply 25December 25, 2022 8:11 PM

With countless streaming platforms available, any theater release takes a hit compared to the times when there were no streaming platforms. Franchises tend to do better, because they have hardcore fans to support, or hate watching, them.

Is it just me, or is Pitt channelling George Clooney in this?

by Anonymousreply 26December 25, 2022 9:05 PM

R25, that probably explains some of it.

by Anonymousreply 27December 25, 2022 9:21 PM

The problem is that Chazelle's understanding of the inner workings of the 20's Hollywood studio system is superficial. And it shows.

by Anonymousreply 28December 25, 2022 9:42 PM

R26, Please explain your comment re how you think Brad Pitt is channelling Clooney.

by Anonymousreply 29December 25, 2022 10:13 PM

R28, What movie do you think best shows the inner workings of the 1920's Hollywood studio system? Perhaps "The Bold and the Beautiful?"

by Anonymousreply 30December 25, 2022 10:18 PM

You sound butthurt, R30. Worked on this turkey? Not sure that the definitive movie has been made but this isn't one. There are far more interesting stories to tell - it wasn't all booze, wild parties, and drugs. Margot Robbie's character, in particular, is a caricature.

by Anonymousreply 31December 25, 2022 10:29 PM

R31, Definitely didn't work on this turkey. Didn't care for the trailer. Just interested in true or at least semi-accurate stories of Old Hollywood.

Never actually saw The Bold and the Beautiful but remember it discussed on DL.

Have heard wild sexual tales re the fetishes of old studio legends.

by Anonymousreply 32December 25, 2022 10:41 PM

I called it. This movie is so 2002. There was no audience for this.

I mean “Hail Caesar” was a flop too. Very similar Hollywood nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 33December 25, 2022 10:51 PM

Movies about Hollywood are OVAH.

by Anonymousreply 34December 25, 2022 11:02 PM

R10, how in the world do you equate 'quality' with this meandering, overblown, mess of a movie? The two are mutually exclusive.

by Anonymousreply 35December 26, 2022 6:20 AM

While I didn't absolutely love it, I thought this was a decent movie. I saw it at the Thursday night on December 22nd, and was one of two people in the theater—there was an older man in his 60s or 70s a couple of rows behind me. It was frankly too long and I felt the last hour did not live up to everything that preceded it, but I wouldn't say it was a bad film. Very much reminded me of something Ken Russell would have directed—garish, over-the-top, frenetic, and heavily stylized. I think it will end up having a life as a cult movie in the decades to come.

by Anonymousreply 36December 26, 2022 7:43 AM

[quote]Is it money laundering?

I swear there are movies being made purely for money laundering purposes. A while back I read something about an all-female movie about a "feminist girl gang" ... starring Vanessa Hudgens. Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 37December 26, 2022 8:13 AM

What about all these old age empowering movies starring Diane Keaton? Is she a money laundering criminal?

by Anonymousreply 38December 26, 2022 8:16 AM

Heard a rumour from someone in the industry that Robbie is absolutely distraught by the critical and commercial failure of Babylon and that she is thinking of quitting the entertainment business.

by Anonymousreply 39December 26, 2022 8:19 AM

I think the movie is stunning. Saw it Christmas Eve and was blown away by it, a huge surprise after the critical evisceration it received from so many critics. The first hour is particularly special, and one that few directors could even dream of pulling off.

This movie may not do well at the box office, and that will be a shame, but time will tell its truth.

by Anonymousreply 40December 26, 2022 8:23 AM

My entertainment industry prediction for 2023: Margot Robbie will get pregnant.

by Anonymousreply 41December 26, 2022 8:23 AM

The trailer was a confusing mess with a bunch of random scenes spliced together that didn't give you any idea what the movie was about. Margot Robbie's character doesn't even look like she's from the 1920's.

by Anonymousreply 42December 26, 2022 10:28 AM

It seems that the early buzz for Jean Smart getting recognized for Best Supporting Actress has dwindled.

by Anonymousreply 43December 26, 2022 10:36 AM

People are calling out Margot for being box office poison now...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44December 26, 2022 10:54 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45December 26, 2022 10:55 AM

Does this movie have gay characters? If not I don't care.

by Anonymousreply 46December 26, 2022 10:59 AM

Just came back from it.

It isn't a bad movie. It is pretty wild/uneven though. Margot Robbie is pretty good in it.

If it really did cost $100M as R11 said, then heads should roll. It is actually kind of a strange, manic movie, with limited appeal. There are some fairly graphic parts (both sexually and otherwise). My theater had a few older people in it, and I wonder what they thought.

by Anonymousreply 47December 26, 2022 10:19 PM

How does Brad look in it?

by Anonymousreply 48December 26, 2022 10:23 PM

[quote] Margot Robbie is box office poison.

The Robbie Troll is like those evil statues outside Minas Morgul: it never sleeps.

Meanwhile:

Wolf of Wall St: 406MM

Suicide Squad: 746MM

Birds of Prey: 205MM

I Tonya: 53MM (budget: 11MM)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: 377MM

Two Oscar noms, three BAFTA noms. Who’s she fucking to make you so jealous, Robbie Troll?

by Anonymousreply 49December 26, 2022 10:41 PM

It's over three hours and most people don't want to sit in a theater that long.

by Anonymousreply 50December 26, 2022 11:36 PM

Tina, bring Margot Robbie the ax!!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51December 27, 2022 12:22 AM

Who was the audience for this? Did they think Brad Pitt and an overhyped "genius" director would be enough to put butts in seats? Well.....they were wrong

by Anonymousreply 52December 27, 2022 12:23 AM

R49 In WOWS and Hollywood she had a minor supporting role.

Now lets talk about her long string of flops:

Tarzan (lead role): FLOP Focus (lead role): FLOP Birds of Prey: Underperformed big time Bombshell: the studio lost $15 million The Suicide Squad: Major FLOP Amsterdam: A Hiroshima and Nagasaki sized BOMB Babylon: A NUCLEAR bomb

Maggot Roberts is not and will never be a superstar. She needs to go back to doings soap operas in Australia!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54December 27, 2022 7:39 AM

[R49] In WOWS and Hollywood she had a minor supporting role.

Now lets talk about her long string of flops:

Tarzan (lead role): FLOP

Focus (lead role): FLOP

Birds of Prey: Underperformed big time

Bombshell: the studio lost $15 million

The Suicide Squad: Major FLOP

Amsterdam: A Hiroshima and Nagasaki sized BOMB

Babylon: A NUCLEAR bomb

Maggot Roberts is not and will never be a superstar. She needs to go back to doings soap operas in Australia!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55December 27, 2022 7:43 AM

This movie is an over-bloated mess. Costumes and Hair are not in sync at all with the period. Disgusting scenes that will burn in your eyes. Not sexy at all. Self-indulgent with zero soul. And all over the place the opening party scene is shown as a party crowded with fighting and sex, then it's elegant, then a seated room, and then an orgy. And all the while, Robbie is dressed like she going to film Guns a Roses video. It seems he did a lot of blows to make this movie and left us a 3-hour mess and a $19 movie ticket to pay for it.

by Anonymousreply 56December 29, 2022 1:53 PM

I saw Babylon several days ago, and I’m still digesting it. I’ll need to see it at least one more time before I can come to any conclusions. I had high hopes for the film during the bacchanal that opens the movie. That scene seems to reference the Carnival in Seville sequence in Von Sternberg’s The Devil Is A Woman. Unfortunately, Margot Robbie is no Dietrich. She’s an actress that I thought I liked, but she’s abrasive and charmless in Babylon. She flaunts sex while being sexless. Her character is based on Clara Bow, the ‘It’ Girl. I think I’d dub Robbie the’Nil’ Girl.

by Anonymousreply 58December 30, 2022 12:46 AM

I’m not a Margot fan at all but the reality is actresses get blamed for movies flopping more often than actors do.

by Anonymousreply 59December 31, 2022 6:11 AM

I really enjoyed it, although it is too long. But the opening orgy sequence is fantastically filmed, and so is the very scary section where Tobey Maguire takes Diego Calva into the tunnels that he calls "the asshole of Los Angeles." And the long extended sequence of the day's outdoor filming of Nellie's first movie and Jack's medieval movie is also terrific.

There were gross things I could have been happy to have seen cut, though, like the elephant's explosive diarrhea at the beginning, and Nellie's extended projectile vomiting all over William Randolph Hearst.

by Anonymousreply 60December 31, 2022 6:16 AM

"Tarzan (lead role): FLOP Focus (lead role): FLOP"

"Focus" grossed approximately three times what it cost.

"Tarzan" grossed nearly two times what it cost, despite a delayed release date, a lacklustre director and mostly poor reviews. It is almost a miracle it made as much as it did, considering these ancient property redos (with the exception of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" films) are consistent flops: "Wolfman", "John Carter", that Luke Evans "Dracula" film.

WB were probably grateful it made as much as it did.

"Amsterdam: A Hiroshima and Nagasaki sized BOMB"

Bale developed the project with Russell and she was saddled with a dead-weight nepotism hire in Washington. Plus there are, like, 500 other actors in it.

Why is she getting the blame?

"Birds of Prey: Underperformed big time"

This is the one film that you can pin the blame squarely on Robbie.

She had the choice between "Birds of Prey" and "Gotham City Sirens" and picked the property with D-Grade characters. That might have worked with a James Gunn-style figure behind the camera, but she selected a director not ready for the jump to the big leagues and lacklustre screenplay.

by Anonymousreply 61December 31, 2022 7:02 AM

When it comes to a star, the question is always: does the audience want to watch this particular actor in that project?

"Barbie" will be a four-quadrant hit and that will give her more opportunities within the studio system, but it will limit her to IP bullshit or smaller-budgeted dramas.

No more blank-check vanity projects for her.

If she wants an Oscar, it will have to be via the indie route which - given that she produced "I, Tonya", "Promising Young Woman" and the TV series "Maid" - is certainly possible.

by Anonymousreply 62December 31, 2022 7:18 AM

The knives are out for Margot Robbie. You can claim whatever you want. Once the audience turns on an actor, it’s over, no matter what Hollywood tries.

by Anonymousreply 63December 31, 2022 12:03 PM

She is a good actress and beautiful. But there is something missing that keeps her from being a real star. I think Jennifer Coolidge has the X factor she lacks.

by Anonymousreply 64December 31, 2022 2:05 PM

Was this movie made in Babylon on Long Island?

by Anonymousreply 65December 31, 2022 2:56 PM

I don't see Robbie being castigated or blamed for this film's problems anywhere but here on Datalounge. In fact, I see her getting praise for her performance, and Damien Chazelle getting all the blame for his self-indulgence.

by Anonymousreply 66December 31, 2022 5:09 PM

I don’t really blame the failure of Babylon on Margot Robbie. She showed herself to be a very good actress in I, Tonya. In Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, she was excellent, although she had less to do. In that film, however, a real sweetness in her character shone through. I found her very appealing.

The problem in Babylon is that she’s about a decade too old for the part. She comes across as both lascivious and experienced right at the beginning. If her character had a young, fresh, innocent look while having a lascivious character, it would have suited the storyline better. Damien Chazelle is more to blame for this than Robbie.

Seeing Babylon a second time, it seemed that Kenneth Anger had taken over the soul of Damien Chazelle. It’s hard to reconcile La La Land with Babylon. What I found especially troubling was Chazelle’s bookending the film with a shower of elephant diarrhea at the beginning and a montage of snippets of classic films at the end. I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. Chazelle should have made Babylon at the end of his career, not at the beginning.

One of the most pleasing parts of Babylon was the use of the classic Paramount Pictures production logo at the beginning. It was pretty much downhill from there.

by Anonymousreply 67December 31, 2022 6:02 PM

R66 She is getting destroyed all over Twitter and gossip blogs. So is Pitt.

by Anonymousreply 68December 31, 2022 6:47 PM

Part of the issue is the casting, but only partially.

"It's a reteaming of the "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" gang ... except the biggest star of the trio."

It's still a three-hour film about the '20s ... released post-Covid ... when all other dramas are bombing.

However - with Emma Stone - the filmmakers had a point of difference with the Tarantino film. With Robbie AND Pitt, you're only reminded of what is missing.

by Anonymousreply 69December 31, 2022 11:26 PM

R55: I'm kind of surprised she's survived so many bombs. Perhaps she doesn't have that much competition in the way of young, generic blondes. Anyway I think she has 1 - 3 years at most left as the it girl who gets first dibs on everything.

by Anonymousreply 70January 3, 2023 8:00 PM

She was just starting out with Tarzan and Focus so apparently she gets forgiven for those. She could hide behind disappointments like Bombshell and The Suicide Squad but not her 2022 movies. She was the female lead in all of her 2022 movies and obviously nobody went to movie theaters last year eagerly anticipating Margot Robbie or the latest Margot Robbie flick.

by Anonymousreply 71January 3, 2023 8:05 PM

Robbie was fucking horrible in this movie, but the blame falls squarely at the feet of Chazelle, who has a 100% track record of making terrible films. I'm at the point now when I see his name, I know it's going to suck, and I'm correct.

by Anonymousreply 72January 6, 2023 6:28 AM

Robbie will definitely be getting double Razzie noms for Amsterdam and Babylon. If Barbie had come out by now, she’d be getting an historic triple nom.

by Anonymousreply 73January 6, 2023 12:12 PM

"Barbie" seemed like a monumentally stupid idea from the get-go.

by Anonymousreply 74January 6, 2023 6:46 PM

Robbie wasn't good in this, but I wouldn't blame her for the movie's failure. I think this would have bombed no matter who starred in it. Other than TCM queens, who wants to sit through a 3 hour long movie about fictional actors in the 20s?

by Anonymousreply 75January 6, 2023 6:52 PM

This movie was shockingly awful. Who greenlit this garbage?

by Anonymousreply 76January 7, 2023 5:42 PM

Paramount which has been badly run for years. There’s a new regime now tho,

by Anonymousreply 77January 7, 2023 6:03 PM

"Paramount which has been badly run for years. There’s a new regime now tho"

The irony is that 2022 was otherwise a very good year for the studio as a result of decisions by the previous regime: "Top Gun: Maverick" was the year's second-highest grossing film, other sequels did well ("Scream", "Sonic", "Jackass Forever") as did other horror ("Orphan", "Smile").

And they even had a star-driven success in "The Lost City".

And Cruise was even fighting with the new CEO to keep "Top Gun: Maverick" in theatres for longer.

It's difficult for Brian Robbins to point to anything and claim a success of his own.

by Anonymousreply 78January 7, 2023 10:20 PM

I love me some Margot Robbie. I might go straight for her. Prestige films are a fickle son a of a bitch and a very hard sell these days.

by Anonymousreply 79January 7, 2023 10:51 PM

I have zero intention of dragging my butt to the cinema to watch this but trusted friends who have seen Babylon it say it is not great, but time will treat it kindly.

Still damning with faint praise, but, it’s praise none the less.

by Anonymousreply 80January 8, 2023 11:15 AM

Robbie’s PR at R79, very late to the game.

by Anonymousreply 81January 8, 2023 12:00 PM

[quote] time will treat it kindly.

Yes, only if "Ow My Balls" winds up winning Best Picture in 10 years.

by Anonymousreply 82January 8, 2023 5:06 PM

Watching this now, gawd it really blows. Damien Chazelle is NOT a writer.

I can’t believe he has a Best Director Oscar. That ought to age as well as Tom Hooper’s win.

by Anonymousreply 83February 8, 2023 7:35 PM

Wow, this movie barely finds its way and then is loses it, irretrievably, real quick.

by Anonymousreply 84February 8, 2023 8:52 PM

I loved it. It's doing well overseas. It's more of a jazzy muscial than a strong dramatic narrative. If you don't see the filmmaking skill at hand, you're an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 85February 9, 2023 2:01 AM

R85, Thanks for posting. I have a suspicion it's one of those high production values, art house films that I will love. If these films, featuring A listers, aren't brilliant they are said to be bad because they are critiqued within an inch of their life. I'm so sick of Marvel, I'm just happy to see movie stars in competent adult films.

by Anonymousreply 86February 9, 2023 2:41 AM

Even pre-superhero era we had stuff like "Ishtar".

by Anonymousreply 87February 9, 2023 2:44 AM

Erm, it’s the storytelling skill that’s missing.

by Anonymousreply 88February 9, 2023 10:59 AM

Wtf did I just watch? I haven’t seen a mess of a movie like this since Mother!

by Anonymousreply 89May 22, 2023 1:36 AM

Unwatchable. I rarely turn off a movie once I begin it but that was offensively awful.

by Anonymousreply 90May 22, 2023 2:23 AM

I am in the minority, but I did not hate this movie as much as many did. I saw it opening night in the theater during an ice storm (there was only one other person in the theater, who appeared to be a geriatric queen who was loudly eating popcorn throughout) and found it entertaining and totally over-the-top. It’s a bit too long for its own good, yes. Didn’t love it, but I liked it.

by Anonymousreply 91May 22, 2023 2:27 AM

Watched in on a plane, I really liked it. This felt like a true Hollywood story, the type of story people pretended "La LA Land" was presenting. I just wish the runtime was cut down because the last act was unnecessary and lost. The rest is a solid movie.

by Anonymousreply 92May 22, 2023 2:32 AM

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pa3TmqOorZ6csm%2BvzqZmraCimq6le5JraWxsYWeFbq7Am7Clp55ir7C5waxkmqxdl7y5ec6fnaKblVZuYg%3D%3D